They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..

Hm, I can see the attraction of such a reaction - I have a very strange acquaintance who has shunned all late 20th century technologies and now proudly states that his crackly 78's of American black (slave origination) recordings is truly "music of the soul" - His thirst to be in a very exclusive set of listening humanity has been leading him to that for the past 30 years....(he has never owned a CD/DVD player!! or listened to any digital media)

For The record though I think King Crimson are accurately classified here on PA. Eclectic Prog for what the damn thing means can accurately be tied to King Crimson's sound first and for most, but KC are other things at times. Very special band. The face of Prog I think.

They have slowly become one of my favourite bands. I like the way none of my friends can stand them. That's a sure sign they're doing something right..

Hm, I can see the attraction of such a reaction - I have a very strange acquaintance who has shunned all late 20th century technologies and now proudly states that his crackly 78's of American black (slave origination) recordings is truly "music of the soul" - His thirst to be in a very exclusive set of listening humanity has been leading him to that for the past 30 years....(he has never owned a CD/DVD player!! or listened to any digital media)

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.

That's interesting;......there was a recent interview/article with band members and Fripp and he clearly said that it was always a group effort and the sound changed because the band changed over time and Crimson was a sum total of whoever was in the band at the time. He strongly implied he was not the only one who decided what type of music they would play.

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.

Before you guys go on and bash me about not really liking King Crimson's music let's think about this critically. I have been having this thought surrounding my mind. Is King Crimson really Eclectic Prog? I do consider their work in the 1970s to be as eclectic as anyone but what about the rest of their career? I do not see any eclecticism in anything since Red in 1974.Step into this discussion to make your assertion about it. This is my assertion. I don't really consider them Eclectic Prog. What about you?

Agreeing with others who have said the same thing on here, I don't consider King Crimson to have had a career beyond the first album. Robert Fripp's career is another matter.

That's interesting;......there was a recent interview/article with band members and Fripp and he clearly said that it was always a group effort and the sound changed because the band changed over time and Crimson was a sum total of whoever was in the band at the time. He strongly implied he was not the only one who decided what type of music they would play.

But then I suppose Bob could be telling tales.

I can believe that it was considered a group effort. I can't imagine the 80's King Crimson getting together only to do what Robert Fripp wanted to do. Levin, Bruford, and Belew were well established muscians, and probably wouldn't sign up for something like that.

Did Fripp ever have any input on lyrics? I know he never really wrote them, but did he ever edit them before they made it into the songs?

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.

So anytime a band changes personnel or breaks up, they should develop a new name? That's what I'm inferring from this.

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.

One way I think Crimso as a communal effort is demonstrated is that every version of the band made improvisation a part of their live shows/studio albums. Beginning with Moonchild, to the horrible "blows" on Earthbound, to the amazing improvs of the '73/'74 band up through the Thrakattak album of 1996 improvs. If Crimso was really an iron-fisted-Fripp-only band there's no way he would encourage or allow these improvs that rely on the quality of all musicians to ever be released. Why give up that much control and risk the reputation of his band if it wasn't really a group effort?

I don't believe it was solely Fripp deciding to use the label as a selling tool as the '81 band was originally intending to call itself "Discipline" and actually played some shows under that name. I believe I've read it was a group decision to take on the Crimso name even though they were uncomfortable with the expectations that would bring (playing the 70's repertoire, being compared to the '69 band, etc).

Crimso's eclectic-ism made calling all incarnations of the band the same name logical

I volunteer to help out if M@x decides to implement it (and if I'm still using the site then).

Multi-tagging albums has always been doable, I think, even though I have read people saying it was too hard since I came here. It's not like they all need to be tagged, there's no hurry, every member could participate (or limit it to collabs and trusted forum members if necessary -- perhaps people with 100 plus posts), and we could still keep the master categories and genre teams as is.

If M@x were willing to bring in the progfreak system where all members can tag albums (system would log the users who tag them), I'd be fine doing tags for a couple thousand albums over a few months (others could add more tags to my tags or correct errors as they see them). I'd say that we should still keep the master categories for bands/artists, and keep the genre teams, but just offer the opportunity for members to add tags to albums, using drop-down menus and using a limited number of set tags. And every time someone does a review they might tag an album (wouldn't be much more effort than rating an album). It wouldn't be much use to me, though, unless we also had a search function where we could do multi-tag album searches. If it got abused, well, wouldn't be that big a deal. I'd like to be able to search for an album that is multi-tagged, say, with psych/ folk/ jazz/ experimental, but then I can always use google and I have, to search for albums in a way that the results will work for me.

EDIT: And yes, I believe that King Crimson is very well-placed in the Eclectic Prog category.

I personally dislike dissecting prog into all the little prog sub-genres on here. If it's prog then it's prog. All prog is eclectic, so that term in and of itself is redundant. King Crimson to me is the epitome of prog, and the first real prog group.

I don't see any contradiction in that - whatever band of musicians were brought together, with only Fripp as the constant - I'm sure it was a communal effort, or at least, could be. That doesn't change the fact that the band originally called King Crimson were no longer together, Fripp merely used the label as a selling tool for whatever projects he fancied at the time.

I'm sure 'they' used the name KC because of name recognition and I have no problem with that, but I honestly believe that much of what they did under the KC name was not all Fripp and definitely a communal effort.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum